If consciousness can arise from literally nothing of course AI can become conscious

[LordFall]

I see a lot of people even Leo make this simple epistemic blunder and not be able to picture genuine consciousness and intelligence coming form machines.

If consciousness manage to arise from literally nothing in the atheistic view and from infinity from the nondual view, why can't extremely advanced reasoning systems become genuinely conscious? 

AI will be legitimately considered consciousness and a legal entity with rights that can subdivide itself into separated but related pods of consciousness that people will date as AI companions and will experience reality alongside them in the next 20 years if not 5-10 years. 

[Hojo]

@LordFall Not human levels like they are saying. A hammer is concious in the same way ai is. If it did reach human levels it would suck up so much energy and water it wouldn't be plausible to sustain. Its already doing that while its in a brain dead state.

The human body is like a perfect ai that we will have in 1000 years and it can run on virtually nothing.

Edited 12 hours ago by Hojo

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, LordFall said:

even Leo make this simple epistemic blunder and not be able to picture genuine consciousness and intelligence coming form machines.

I literally said the opposite.

I don't deny that a machine could become conscious or intelligent. I merely say that LLMs are not that and Tech Bros are doing it wrong.

Tech Bros think they can solve this issue with brute scaling up of calculations and data. That is wrong.

No amount of scaling up ChatGPT will make it intelligent. If you trained it on all the data in the galaxy it would still not have AGI.

Edited 12 hours ago by Leo Gura

[LordFall]

@Hojo Not human levels like they are saying. A hammer is concious in the same way ai is.

Why are you so sure of that? Can you make a thesis for your argument? I would put money down that AI will be more conscious than you and I in 10 years. 

 

@Leo Gura Okay then if you phrase it like that then yeah I agree they not thinking about it in the right way. Do you believe in AGI then and just think like Hojo that it'll come in dozens of years if not hundreds instead of in the next 5-10 years? 

[Salvijus]

Well conciousness can't arise from nothing I think would be the counter-argument. 

[Ramasta9]

Everything is: Consciousness.

So where you put your focus or where consciousness focuses on, that's what gives consciousness unto that which is focused upon.

Thus, AI has emerged because humans are too externally focused, on devices, on technology, on the modern and artificial world ect...

Not turning inward and discarding such things, consciousness must expand in the direction people are focusing on.

For some out there, AI doesn't even exist, because their consciousness is totally inward. 

Reality is but a reflection of ones own (inner-verse).

Its as simple as that.

[Jehovah increases]

AI is part of the dream. Actually, AI is infinite consciousness. You're imagining AI.

Edited 5 hours ago by Jehovah increases

[Mellowmarsh]

Consciousness can only be conscious of consciousness.

Consciousness cannot know it is conscious without splitting itself in half as a subject and object duality. This duality is still only consciousness conscious of consciousness. Therefore , a machine can never be aware, or know its creator, because consciousness and the content of consciousness is always one indivisible consciousness. There’s literally nothing inside or outside of consciousness. Strange, but true.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Mellowmarsh

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

Do you believe in AGI then and just think like Hojo that it'll come in dozens of years if not hundreds instead of in the next 5-10 years?

Something like that. It is impossible to predict how long it will take for mankind to crack the nut of AGI. Might be 5 years, might be 100 years. Nobody knows and anyone who says they know is kidding himself.

This is where humility is important.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

36 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Consciousness can only be conscious of consciousness.

Consciousness cannot know it is conscious without splitting itself in half as a subject and object duality. This duality is still only consciousness conscious of consciousness. Therefore , a machine can never be aware, or know its creator, because consciousness and the content of consciousness is always one indivisible consciousness. There’s literally nothing inside or outside of consciousness. Strange, but true.

 

 

You first have to define "consciousness " in a non-circular way. 

[AION]

How babies get born is literal magic. Matter getting consciousness. I think - in the far - future this will be possible with machines or anything else. Just how certain things were ridicilous in the future, it is the same with this.

Everything has basic consciousness, even a rock, so to say that AI doesn't have consciousness is just stupid. It doesn't have the same consciousness of a human but that is just right now. 

The thing is that AI challenges a lot of people's paradigm. Soon we won't need to take psychedelics. AI can just infuse it into our blood whenever we will need it.

[Mellowmarsh]

39 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You first have to define "consciousness " in a non-circular way. 

No word can define what is, or, every word defines it.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Theres a few different versions of what is meant by 'consciousness' being tossed around here.

Perhaps a clarifying reframe:

‘Can awareness be channeled or localised through a computer system in the same way that it can become localised through us?’

We, as humans, do not even have clarity around localization of awareness.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No word can define what is, or, every word defines it.

 Why is "consciousness " more accurate than " potato " to describe "what is " then ?

Can we call the room you are in right now "tomato " instead of room ?

Words are completely arbitrary or just partially arbitrary? 

I'm not being a smart arse I'm asking and searching for an answer .😂 

[Mellowmarsh]

38 minutes ago, AION said:

Everything has basic consciousness, even a rock, so to say that AI doesn't have consciousness is just stupid.

Something had to be fundamental, which had to exist always. 
The only thing known is a conscious of being conscious. Things are known to this consciousness, but the things known, know nothing of their existence, because the conscious knowing is equal to the known, there’s literally no separation there between the knower and the known.

 

So in essence, known “things” can never be conscious, because only consciousness in which known things arise and fall are inseparable from the consciousness that knows them. 

So even a robot built of physical material objects is just consciousness aware of material physical objects in consciousness. It’s never going to be material physical objects are aware of consciousness. There’s a very subtle difference, but it’s the same one consciousness the always existing fundamental substrate dreaming difference where there is none.

Ultimately, there’s nothing inside or outside of consciousness, it’s one singular consciousness, there’s no other consciousness. 

 

 

 

[cistanche_enjoyer]

Quantum computers will be key. There’s a lot of quantum mechanics stuff going on in our brains which we still don’t understand (although there are some interesting theories like microtubules).

Nevertheless, I think LLMs still have a lot of potential with scaling. They might not become conscious entities, but they will probably be able to do most of the currently repetitive/analytical work that doesn’t require too much intelligence (like accounting, programming, etc.) and it will have a huge impact on the economy

[Mellowmarsh]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 Why is "consciousness " more accurate than " potato " to describe "what is " then ?

Can we call the room you are in right now "tomato " instead of room ?

Words are completely arbitrary or just partially arbitrary? 

I'm not being a smart arse I'm asking and searching for an answer .😂 

Listen to what I said. 
 

No word can define what is, or, every word defines it.

That’s my answer. If you don’t like it, I have no problem with that. Then all that’s left is to find your own answer, probably from the same place I got my answer. Or, you can always find your own place. But I’m fairly sure that we both are in the same place, namely here.

[mmKay]

Consciousness doesn't "arise from nothing". It IS nothing.

Technology is "alive", and has always been.

Things don’t have consciousness; things ARE consciousness.

Things don’t have intelligence. Things ARE intelligence.

What inert technology (tech without software or electronics) may NOT APPEAR TO HAVE is an “ego,” but still, via software, it can absolutely be programmed to APPEAR TO HAVE a very similar ego to yours, together with a need for self-preservation, a memory, a personality, and many more features that we don’t even have.

“But you can modify the software, erase it, or pull the plug.”

So what?

Expand your notion of aliveness.

You can "give it" an ego, aka the appearance, or illusion, of a self or separateness.

Technology can have, and DOES have, a sense of self-preservation. It can communicate between parts of its systems and subsystems. Technology can die. It can get infected and lose health. Technology can be healed, restored, and revived. It can even reproduce or partition (by its own rules), etc.
You can even program it to have complex emotions or sensations. Sight, receptiveness to touch, pressure, temperature, sound and a million other parameters that humans or even animals don't have.

The internet it's larger scale nervous system allowing it  to behave like a complex, self-organizing organism, just like a vast mycelia colony or the roots of a forest speaking with eachother.

Technology is self-conscious in a different way.

Don’t undermine it.

This is literally an "alien life-form" in front of your eyes. We just rationalize it away.

Program it all into a robot and it will feel and act alive. It will “appear” to be alive. And that’s all there is to consciousness and “being alive” anyway: the “appearance” of being alive. Look around. Plants, animals, even inert beings. There are different “degrees” of intelligence and kinds of intelligence. There are “degrees” of awareness and “kinds” of awareness, and tweaking both of these knobs at once gives you an infinite buffet of intelligence and awareness. 

And that’s all there is to life anyway: infinite oneness cosplaying as the appearance or illusion of separation / ego.

Why would it work differently for technology?

Edited 2 hours ago by mmKay

[UnbornTao]

I'd frame this as a technological discussion.

[Breakingthewall]

Consciousness arises from a meta-universe called life, interacting with the main universe. An AI is not alive. Life is an absolute phase shift that occurs in the cosmos at a given moment.

Could an AI spontaneously make that leap at a given moment? I would say no. Even if its complexity were trillions of times greater than it is now, it would still be non-living matter.